YURIDIS PUTUSAN NO 101/Pid.B/2011/PN.Crp TENTANG TINDAK PIDANA PERJUDIAN ONLINE

Abstract

Gambling is regulated in Article 303 of the Criminal Code whereas online gambling regulated in Article 27 paragraph (2) of the EIT. The Decision No 101 / Pid.B / 2011 / PN.Crp on the Crime of online gambling, the basis used to prosecute the accused in court is Article 303 of the Criminal Code, the judge also sentenced the defendant to use the article, whereas online gambling has been specifically regulated in the Act ITE. Formulation of the problem: 1) How can the application of criminal law in the criminal acts committed online gambling in Decision No 101 / Pid.B / 2011 / PN.Crp? 2) How is the consideration of judges in a criminal sentenced to criminal acts committed online gambling in Decision No 101 / Pid.B / 2011 / PN.Crp? This research used normative legal approach, reviewing a court decision No 101 / Pid.B / 2011 / PN.Crp. Data collection technique was the documentary study. Data were analyzed qualitatively. The results showed: 1) The defendant was dropped Article 303 Paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code because the defendant has met the elements of the crime of gambling. Prosecutors use the Criminal Code to prosecute the defendant, contrary to the principle of law ie lex specialist derogaat legi generalis based on the principle that the law regulating online gambling is the ITE Law instead of the Criminal Code 2) The judge sentenced criminal defendant based the indictment, namely Article 303 Paragraph (1) 1st because the Criminal Code has been fulfilled the elements of the article, the judge also consider criminal penalties based on things that are burdensome and ease.

Keywords: Decision, criminal acts, gambling, online